Started By
Message

re: lamb chops/rack question

Posted on 4/3/13 at 10:18 am to
Posted by NaturalBeam
Member since Sep 2007
14524 posts
Posted on 4/3/13 at 10:18 am to
quote:

I cooked mine to 125 then took it out of the over and covered it loosely with foil and let it rest for 10 minutes
So you didn't say the above? Or you said that after covering and resting for 10 minutes, the temp was still 125, after you had cooked it to 125?

I didn't realize that winning competitions gave you access to meat that didn't rise in temperature upon covering and resting. Where do us amateur cooks obtain this magical meat?
This post was edited on 4/3/13 at 10:20 am
Posted by nikinik
Mid City
Member since Jan 2009
5733 posts
Posted on 4/3/13 at 11:54 am to
quote:

So you didn't say the above? Or you said that after covering and resting for 10 minutes, the temp was still 125, after you had cooked it to 125?


That's exactly what I said. I said that 125-130 is medium rare. When I took it out at 125 and covered it loosely with foil and let it rest, the temp was then 130...which was perfect. Cooking to 140 (which is what you suggested), then letting it rest...even going up in 5 degrees (although you are saying it would go up 10-15 degrees in that time), it would still be overcooked. Don't take my word for it. Ask any chef. This board is used as a means to help others with cooking and to give suggestions and feedback. You suggested cooking to 140. I said by the time it rested, it wouldn't be medium rare. To each his own.
This post was edited on 4/3/13 at 11:56 am
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram